DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searfoss (US 7320532) in view of Main (US 10314407) further in view of Tan (WO 2012011869) (cited on 4/28/23 IDS) further in view of Rhee (US 6206821).
Regarding claim 1, Searfoss teaches a sleep aid apparatus comprising:
A light source adapted to generate a light signal, projected from said sleep aid apparatus (column 5, line 12 “the nightlight includes a housing, a light source” and column 5, line 20 “The light source may include one or more lamps for producing a plurality of lamp modes”)
projected from said sleep aid apparatus with a first luminosity, wherein said first luminosity varies cyclically between a maximum luminosity and a minimum luminosity at a predetermined rate between 6 times per minute and 40 times per minute (column 2, line 60 “this undulation varies between 5 lumens and 25 lumens at a frequency of one cycle per second to one cycle per minute (1 Hz-0.0167 Hz). Moreover, the sleep help mode illumination may automatically decrease in frequency and/or illumination over a predetermined time to increase effectiveness. Preferably, the decrease in frequency and/or illumination is a selectable option which is controlled by the user.” The examiner notes that 1 cycle per second would be 60 cycles per minute putting the prior art within the claimed limitation of 1 cycle per minute to 60 cycles per minute.)
and wherein said light signal has a wavelength selected from a range of 600 nm to 700 nm; (column 6, line 20: “the user may select colors stretching across the visible light spectrum” and figure 4 shows the wavelength range that can be selected, including 600 – 700 nm)”)
and a sound source (column 4, line 11 “Additional audio functions may include compact disk (CD), tape, MP3 or prerecorded audio such as nature sounds or personalized messages.”)
but fails to teach wherein the maximum luminosity is no greater than 200 lux and wherein within a predetermined frequency range said audio signal has a signal intensity which generally decreases as the frequency increases.
Main teaches a sleep system with a lighting program with a max of 200 lux (column 9, line 2 “Within ˜45 minutes of wake time Sleeper in light sleep or REM Gradually increase from 0-200 lux of 6700K light”) and a sound program with a signal intensity that generally decreases as the frequency increases (Column 9, line 27: Pink noise, which is sound with energy inversely proportional to the frequency, at 60 dB significantly decreases sleep latency and induces more deep sleep).
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system in Searfoss to have the light and audio intensity taught in Main. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that brain waves may synchronize with the low frequencies in this sound, and so induced greater amounts of deep sleep when compared to quiet nights. Additionally, this level of light is suitable for regulating the circadian rhythm of the body. See column 8, line 42 and column 9, line 27 of Main.
However, both Searfoss and Main fail to teach the sound source adapted to generate a continuous audio signal for a predetermined time period.
Tan teaches a sound source adapted to generate a continuous audio signal for a predetermined time period. (Paragraph [0021] “The first range of time intervals may be around 0.05s to around 5s; the second range of time intervals may be around 0.5s to around 10s; and the third range of time intervals may be around 3 s to around 60s. As such, each sound arrangement may be made up of a collection of continuous segments, each having a tempo that may be the same or different from another segment.”)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Searfoss and Main in view of Tan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that a continuous sound would be less disruptive to the user trying to fall asleep.
Searfoss, Main, and Tan fails to teach that the said audio signal is attenuated for frequencies above 1kHz.
Rhee teaches a device that records and reproduces womb sounds for comfort that uses a low-pass filter that is attenuated for frequencies above 1khZ. (Column 3, line 44: “The first and second low pass filters 36 and 37 are operative to pass, with minimal attenuation, frequency components of the baseband signal up to a low pass filter cutoff frequency, for example, of 1,000 Hz” And column 7, line 12: “The device of the present invention has mainly been designed for a pregnant woman, but is also effective to adult men, women, children, and psychopathic patients.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleep aid apparatus taught by Searfoss, Main, and Tan to use a low pass filter attenuated for frequencies above 1kHz as taught in Rhee. One of ordinary skill would have been able to recognize that having an audio signal above 1 khZ would remove undesired noises. See column 3, line 49 of Rhee.
Regarding claim 2, Searfoss, Main, Tan, and Rhee teaches the sleep aid apparatus according to claim 1, and Main teaches wherein within said predetermined frequency range, said signal intensity is inversely proportional to frequency. (Column 9, line 27: Pink noise, which is sound with energy inversely proportional to the frequency, at 60 dB significantly decreases sleep latency and induces more deep sleep).
Regarding claim 5, Searfoss teaches the sleep aid apparatus of claim 1, and Rhee further teaches attenuation is provided by a low-pass filter. (column 3, line 44 “ The first and second low pass filters 36 and 37 are operative to pass, with minimal attenuation, frequency components of the baseband signal up to a low pass filter cutoff frequency, for example, of 1,000 Hz, and then to reject frequency components of other baseband signals above the low pass filter cutoff frequency to remove undesired noises.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleep aid apparatus in Searfoss to use a low pass filter as taught in Rhee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that this is a known technique used in similar devices and that combining the sleep aid apparatus of Searfoss with the apparatus taught in Rhee would have produced the predictable results of eliminating high frequency noise.
Regarding claim 6, Searfoss, Main, Tan, Rhee and Sedaros teach the apparatus of claim 5 but fails to teach that the said audio signal is attenuated for frequencies above 1kHz.
Rhee further teaches a device that records and reproduces womb sounds for comfort that uses a low-pass filter that is attenuated for frequencies above 1khZ. (Column 3, line 44: “The first and second low pass filters 36 and 37 are operative to pass, with minimal attenuation, frequency components of the baseband signal up to a low pass filter cutoff frequency, for example, of 1,000 Hz” And column 7, line 12: “The device of the present invention has mainly been designed for a pregnant woman, but is also effective to adult men, women, children, and psychopathic patients.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleep aid apparatus taught by Searfoss, Main, Tan, Rhee and Sedaros to use a low pass filter attenuated for frequencies above 1kHz as taught in Rhee. One of ordinary skill would have been able to recognize that having an audio signal above 1 khZ would remove undesired noises. See column 3, line 49 of Rhee. Since the claimed device is intended use for helping an infant sleep ensuring the noise is gentle and comforting would be necessary for the claimed device.
Regarding claim 7, Searfoss, Main, Tan, and Rhee teach the apparatus of claim 1, and Tan further teaches wherein said sound source is adapted to generate said continuous audio signal during at least a portion of a time period in which said first luminosity cyclically varies (paragraph [0014] “ For instance, during execution of a sequence, a first pattern of coloured light may be emitted by the light emitting unit for a first segment of a sound arrangement, while a second pattern of coloured light (emitted at a speed that is different than the first pattern of coloured light) may display for a second segment of the sound arrangement.“)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleep apparatus taught by Searfoss, Main, Tan, and Rhee to produce an audio signal during the light pattern as taught in Tan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that sleep aid devices merely have each of their constituent components operating independently of each other, i.e. little effort is directed at ensuring interaction between any of the components as they operate and it would thus be advantageous to provide a device which provides more than health benefits and enhances the sensory experience while the device is in operation. See paragraph [0004] – [0005] of Tan.
Regarding claim 8, Searfoss, Main, Tan, and Rhee teach the sleep aid apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein said predetermined time period is 40 minutes.
However, Tan further teaches a sleep aid apparatus with an adjustable timer (paragraph [00104]: “The sleep timer may be adjusted in intervals of 5 minutes up to a maximum of two hours.”) The examiner is interpreting that based on the prior art there is an embodiment of this sleep aid apparatus with a first predetermined period that can be adjusted to 40 minutes.
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the sleep system in Searfoss to have the adjustable timer in Tan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that this is a known technique in the art and that modifying the system in Searfoss in view of Tan would have yielded the predictable results of an adjustable timer for 40 minutes.
Regarding claim 9, Searfoss, Main, Tan, and Rhee teach the sleep aid apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the audio signal is continuous.
However, Tan further teaches wherein said continuous audio signal is uninterrupted during said predetermined time period. (Paragraph [0021]: “As such, each sound arrangement may be made up of a collection of continuous segments”)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the sleep system in Searfoss to have the continuous audio signal in Tan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that this is a known technique in the art and that modifying the system in Searfoss in view of Tan would have yielded the predictable results of having continuous segments to prevent sleep disruption.
Regarding claim 12, Searfoss teaches a sleep aid apparatus according to claim 1,
further comprising a further light source adapted to selectively generate a further light signal, (column 5, line 12 “the nightlight includes a housing, a light source” and column 5, line 20 “The light source may include one or more lamps for producing a plurality of lamp modes”)
projected from said sleep aid apparatus (column 5, line 12 “the nightlight includes a housing, a light source” and column 5, line 20 “The light source may include one or more lamps for producing a plurality of lamp modes” ) with a second luminosity (column 2, line 60 “light is produced at a luminosity of between 5 lumens and 50 lumens. Furthermore, it is preferable that the light has an intensity which varies in a sine wave like pattern.” )
and wherein said further light signal is different from said light signal (column 5, line 20: “The light source may include one or more lamps for producing a plurality of lamp modes, each producing light at different intensity and/or frequency bands.”)
Regarding claim 13, Searfoss discloses the sleep aid apparatus according to claim 12, wherein said second luminosity is constant. (column 3, line 8 “For example, a preferred luminosity produced during the wake-up mode is between 1,000 lumens and 1,800 lumens. Even more preferably, the light produces approximately 1,600 lumens.”)
Regarding claim 14, Searfoss discloses the sleep aid apparatus according to claim 12, further comprising a diffuser element configured to evenly diffuse the further light signal. (column 5, line 18 “the housing includes a screen 5 which diffuses the light over a broad surface area to provide a more pleasing and uniform illumination.”)
Regarding claims 15, Searfoss teaches the sleep aid apparatus of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein said maximum luminosity is no greater than 100 lux.
However, Main teaches an intelligent sleep ecosystem that has a maximum luminosity. (Column 8, line 60: “Dusk simulation: Bed senses the occupant is ready for sleep Decrease in motion Flatter posture Change light to 2700K and decrease from 200-0 lux over 30 minutes Dawn simulation: Bed senses the occupant is ready to wake up Within ˜45 minutes of wake time Sleeper in light sleep or REM Gradually increase from 0-200 lux of 6700K light”).
It would be prima facie obvious to modify the system taught in claim 1 to have a maximum luminosity of 100 lux. One of ordinary skill would have been able to recognize that every user would require different settings to aid in falling asleep and further even though where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Please see MPEP 2144, section II, A; in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); and in re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 16, Searfoss teaches the sleep aid apparatus of claim 12 but fails to teach wherein said second luminosity is selectively limited to a maximum of 200 Lux.
However, Main teaches an intelligent sleep ecosystem that has a maximum luminosity of 200 lux. (Column 8, line 60: “Dusk simulation: Bed senses the occupant is ready for sleep Decrease in motion Flatter posture Change light to 2700K and decrease from 200-0 lux over 30 minutes Dawn simulation: Bed senses the occupant is ready to wake up Within ˜45 minutes of wake time Sleeper in light sleep or REM Gradually increase from 0-200 lux of 6700K light”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleep aid apparatus in Searfoss to have the maximum luminosity taught in Main. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize lights which simulate the sun's cycle have been used to aid sleep: decreasing light in the evening and increasing light in the morning help regulate the body's circadian rhythm and establish a regular sleep pattern. See column 8, line 43 of Main.
Regarding claim 17, Searfoss teaches the sleep aid apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each cycle of said cyclic variation includes a gradual increase from said minimum luminosity to said maximum luminosity and a gradual decrease from said maximum luminosity to said minimum luminosity (column 5, line 66 “the sleep help mode produces a light of an undulating intensity, increasing and decreasing in a rhythmic pattern. Preferably, the undulation varies the luminosity of the light between 5 lumens and 25 lumens in a sine wave pattern of increasing and decreasing intensity.” The examiner notes that a sine wave has a peak value and minimum value which the light will be increasing and decreasing between.)
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Searfoss teaches the sleep aid apparatus according to claim 1 (of claim 18) and claim 17 (of claim 19) and further teaches wherein said predetermined rate is within a range of 8 times per minute to 20 times per minute. (column 2, line 60 “this undulation varies between 5 lumens and 25 lumens at a frequency of one cycle per second to one cycle per minute (1 Hz-0.0167 Hz). Moreover, the sleep help mode illumination may automatically decrease in frequency and/or illumination over a predetermined time to increase effectiveness. Preferably, the decrease in frequency and/or illumination is a selectable option which is controlled by the user.” The examiner notes that 1 cycle per second would be 60 cycles per minute putting the prior art within the claimed range of 8 – 20 times per minute.
Regarding claim 20, Searfoss teaches the sleep aid apparatus of claim 17, and further teaches wherein said predetermined rate is configured to incrementally change over a second predetermined time period. (column 3, line 35 “in a preferred embodiment, the processor automatically decreases the undulation frequency from a rate initially selected by the user. The undulation frequency decreases, thereby increasing the light's sine wave period until the processor's timer deactivates the sleep help mode entirely. The rate of change in undulation frequency is also preferably controllable by the user using the nightlight's controller.”)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searfoss in view of Main further in view of Tan further in view of Rhee further in view of Gordon (US 2018/0344968).
Regarding claim 3, Searfoss, Main, Tan, and Rhee teaches the sleep aid apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein within said predetermined frequency range, said signal intensity is inversely proportional to frequency.
However, Gordon teaches a sound generation system for inducing a relaxing or sleep state that can produce an audio signal wherein within said predetermined frequency range, said signal intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the frequency. (paragraph [0025] “the audio output can include characteristics such as: brown noise 201”) The examiner would like to note that a signal intensity inversely proportional to square of the frequency is the definition of brown noise. Therefore, the prior art is producing a signal intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the frequency.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleep apparatus taught in Searfoss to produce an audio signal taught in Gordon (inversely proportional of the square of the frequency). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that the benefits of brown noise 201 may include fostering relaxation and meditation, improving mental focus, enhancing reading comprehension, and improving quality of sleep. See paragraph [0027] of Gordon.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searfoss in view of Main further in view of Tan further in view of Rhee further in view of Cuervo (US 4785797) and Luxon, L. M. (1998). Toys and games: poorly recognised hearing hazards?: European case ascertainment will help to confirm the association. BMJ, 316(7143), 1473. Herein referred to as Luxon.
Regarding claim 4, Searfoss teaches the sleep aid apparatus according to claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the volume of said audio signal is limited to at least one of 80 dBA time averaged emission or 110 dBC peak emission, at a distance of approximately 500 mm.
Cuervo teaches a method for sound treatment of infants citing volume safety levels. (Column 6, line 63 ”The overall level of the signal was adjusted to be about seventy five dBA. It was found that the maximum level (seventy four db) was recorded in the span centered at five hundred Hz; slightly lower levels were recorded in the two hundred fifty Hz and one thousand Hz bands. Subjectively, the sound was noted to be moderately loud but not objectionable. There is no evidence to suggest that exposure to this noise for even up to eight hours would in any way damage hearing. It is well below the eighty five dBA level stipulated for an eight hour exposure by Occupational Safety and Health Administration Rules.” And column 10, line 54 “For those subjects receiving the sound condition, the seventy five DB sound was re-set by an audiologist using a sound meter when the sound generator was fixed to the infants crib.” ) The examiner is noting that it is already in the prior art and safety rules to have audio signals less than 85 decibels. Additionally, as the sound levels were measured by a sound meter which in general practice would be measured from about 1 meter away, the dbA level could not exceed 80 decibels on average.
However, Cuervo is silent on a sound level of 110 dBC peak emission.
Luxon, a professor of audiological medicine, writes an editorial on hearing hazards of toys and games for children. (column 1, paragraph 3 “At the child's ear sound levels of up to 122 dB(A) for toy mobile telephones and 150-160 dB(C) (which exceeds the noise at work peak action level) for toy weapons have been reported and may cause severe auditory damage.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleep aid apparatus in Searfoss to follow the safety standards taught in Cuervo’s method and Luxon’s editorial. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that these sound levels are design incentives for devices intended to be used around children. By following the regulatory safety sound levels, this would create a device that is appealing for parents because it would be safe to use around young infants with developing hearing systems.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searfoss in view of Main further in view of Tan further in view of Rhee further in view of Liu (CN 108837522).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Searfoss, Main, Tan, and Rhee teach the sleep apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the apparatus the apparatus further comprises and audio sensor for detecting an external audio signal (of claim 10) and wherein said audio signal is generated in response to the detected external audio signal (of claim 11).
However, Liu teaches a smart calming toy for infants to help them sleep, with an audio sensor for detecting an external audio signal and then generating an audio signal in response to the detected external audio signal. (pg. 2, line 73-73 “the crying sound sensing module senses the infant crying, and the intelligent chip controls the audio control module to randomly play various lullaby. The lighting control module switches a variety of soft lights to assist infants and toddlers to sleep.”, see also pg. 3, lines 143-145 and pg. 3, lines 160-163).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleep aid apparatus taught by Searfoss, Main, Tan, and Rhee to generate an audio signal response to the detected external audio signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize in the evening, appeasing infants and young children will affect the quality of sleep of young parents, which in turn affects other aspects of life. Infants require constant comfort throughout the night and caregivers may not be able to provide that while also maintaining their own sleep quality. See background section of Liu.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searfoss in view Main further in view of Tan further in view of Rhee further in view of Roberts (US 5079682).
Regarding claim 21, Searfoss teaches the sleep aid apparatus of claim 1, and Searfoss further teaches a minimum lumnisoity greater than zero (column 2, line 60 “Furthermore, it is preferable that the light has an intensity which varies in a sine wave like pattern. Preferably, this undulation varies between 5 lumens and 25 lumens“) but fails to teach wherein said minimum luminosity is no more than 5% of said maximum luminosity.
Roberts teaches a sleep apparatus with a light source with a minimum luminosity is 5% of said maximum luminosity. (Column 2, line 53 “the minimum intensity of the artificial light during the period of exposure is between about 0 lux and about 50 lux, and is more preferably between about 0.1 and about 10 lux”). The examiner is choosing to modify the sleep apparatus in claim 1 with a minimum luminosity of 10 and when the maximum luminosity is set to 200 (as taught in Main) then that would make the minimum luminosity 5% of the maximum luminosity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleep aid apparatus in Searfoss to have the minimum luminosity of 10 lux. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to that this is a known technique in the art and that improving Searfoss’ system in view of Roberts would have the predictable results of being able to maintain a minimally lit environment to not disrupt sleep.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searfoss in view Main further in view of Tan further in view of Rhee in view of Chien (US 2011/0085323).
Regarding claim 22, Searfoss teaches the sleep aid apparatus according to claim 2, but fails to teach wherein the apparatus is configured to project the light signal in a beam having a diameter between 30 cm and 60 cm at a distance of approximately 140 cm from the apparatus.
Chien teaches an LED projection night light that projects a beam having a diameter between 30cm (11.8 inches) to 60 cm (23.6 inches) at a distance of 140cm (4.5 feet), from the apparatus. (Figure 9, shows that the image size can be 12-24 inches projected at a distance of 6-12 feet to the ceiling. And paragraph [0028] “It will be appreciated that alternative arrangements for the telescope-assembly will still fall within the scope of the current invention. These may utilize the alternative constructions illustrated in FIG. 9A. The optics lens, telescope length, lens diameter, and/or focus can all be well designed to get a desired image quality and size out of the LED projection night light.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleep aid apparatus in Searfoss and Evans to have the dimensions taught in Chien to get a desired image quality and size out of a night light. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would have been able to recognize that the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Please see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) and MPEP 2144.04. IV.
Regarding claim 23, Searfoss and Chien teach the sleep aid apparatus of claim 22, and Chien further teaches the wherein the narrow beam projects from the apparatus in a substantially conical configuration. (Figs 1-2 show the beam projected in a conical configuration.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleep aid apparatus in Searfoss to project a narrow beam as taught in Chien. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to that this is a known technique in the art and that improving Tan’s system in view of Evans would have the predictable results of being able to maintain a minimally lit environment to not disrupt sleep.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112 (b)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 17, and 22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1, 17, and 22 have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 7, 12-17 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Searfoss, Main, Tan, and Rhee.
First, Searfoss teaches an undulating light signal with selectable colors across the visible spectrum including 600-700 nm that can vary between a max and min luminosity of 6 to 40 times a minute as described in the new claim 1 rejection. It is not novel to discover the optimum range of which a device should operate. Each user would require unique setting of the combination of light and sound signal to help them achieve successful sleep.
Second, although Searfoss does not individually teach coordinating the light and audio signal to a frequency above 1kHz when taught in combination with Tan and Rhee, as described in the claim 1 rejection above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this frequency would remove undesired noises as seen in column 3, line 49 of Rhee. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Third, Main teaches the claimed limitations of increasing to 200 lux and the additional amended claimed limitations are taught in combination with Searfoss, Tan, and Rhee the amended claim 1 rejection above. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, reasons for combining these references are taught in MPEP 2144 section II, column 8, line 42 and column 9, line 27 of Main and column 3, line 49 of Rhee. Further, it is noted by the examiner in the new grounds of rejection that the combination of these references would create a less disruptive environment for a user to achieve a successful sleep state.
Therefore, the amended claim 1 rejection is not in condition for allowance and the dependent claims are not in condition for allowance as well.
Regarding amended claim 3, Gordon teaches a sound generation system for inducing a relaxing or sleep state that can produce an audio signal wherein within said predetermined frequency range, said signal intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the frequency. The examiner would like to note that a signal intensity inversely proportional to square of the frequency is the definition of brown noise. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, see paragraph [0027] of Gordon.
Regarding amended claim 4, Cuervo teaches a method for sound treatment of infants citing volume safety levels. Luxon, a professor of audiological medicine, writes an editorial on hearing hazards of toys and games for children. When taught in combination Cuervo and Luxon teach the limitations in the amended claim 4, In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that these sound levels are design incentives for devices intended to be used around children. By following the regulatory safety sound levels, this would create a device that is appealing for parents because it would be safe to use around young infants with developing hearing systems.
Regarding amended claim 5, Rhee teaches a low pass filter and when taught with the references in the new claim 1 rejection teach the amended limitations. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, a low pass filter would remove unwanted high frequency noise.
Regarding claims 8-9, and 18-19, Tan teaches an adjustable timer with continuous audio segments and specific repeatable rates and when taught with the references in the new claim 1 rejection teach the amended limitations. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that the combination of Searfoss and Main would have yielded the predictable results of having a customizable light pattern to aid with sleep without disruptive noise signals.
Regarding amended claims 10 and 11, Liu teaches an audio sensor as taught in the claim rejections above and when taught in combination with the new claim 1 rejection teaches the combination of cyclic light signal with the audio signal.
Regarding amended claim 21, Roberts teaches the amended claim and when combined with claim 1 teaches the amended claim 1 limitations.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Chien teach the amended limitations and when combined with claim 1 teaches the amended claim 1 limitations.
Therefore, the dependent claims 2-23 are not in condition for allowance.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIANA JOY LACAY DECASTRO whose telephone number is (571)272-8316. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.L.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights